Re: Improved error handling (Was: [PATCH 1/2] sequencer: factor out rewrite_file())

From: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
Date: Nov 18, 2017, 09:01 UTC
Message-ID: <c50ac174-15bd-60bc-490c-d231e3eb501d@kdbg.org>
In-Reply-To: <20171117223345.s3ihubgda3qdb2j6@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Am 17.11.2017 um 23:33 schrieb Jeff King:

Show 15 quoted lines

> On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 05:13:15PM +0100, Simon Ruderich wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 04, 2017 at 10:07:00PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
>>> Yes, I think what you've written here (and below) is quite close to the
>>> error_context patches I linked elsewhere in the thread. In other
>>> words, I think it's a sane approach.
>>
>> In contrast to error_context I'd like to keep all exiting
>> behavior (die, ignore, etc.) in the hand of the caller and not
>> use any callbacks as that makes the control flow much harder to
>> follow.
> 
> Yeah, I have mixed feelings on that. I think it does make the control
> flow less clear. At the same time, what I found was that handlers like
> die/ignore/warn were the thing that gave the most reduction in
> complexity in the callers.

Would you not consider switching over to C++? With exceptions, you get the error context without cluttering the API. (Did I mention that librarification would become a breeze? Do not die in library routines: not a problem anymore, just catch the exception. die_on_error parameters? Not needed anymore. Not to mention that resource leaks would be much, MUCH simpler to treat.)

-- Hannes